Oren M. Spiegler – 12/12/06

This page was last updated on December 12, 2006.

Are non-smokers expendable?; Oren M. Spiegler; Beaver County Times; December 12, 2006.

Mr. Spiegler is such a prolific letter writer, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review gave him a little tribute back in 2003. Google “Oren M. Spiegler” and you’ll get more hits than you know what to do with. Unfortunately, prolific is not a synonym for competent. Mr. Spiegler claims to be a Republican.

While Mr. Spiegler may be a Republican, the position he takes in this letter and “Our right to breathe clean air” is definitely non-conservative. For more of my comments on this topic, please read my critique of the Times editorial entitled “Smoked out” and my letter to the editor.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“With the neighboring state of Ohio being the latest jurisdiction to join the smoke-free bandwagon, one wonders how much longer Gov. Edward Rendell and the do-nothing General Assembly can continue to obstruct by standing with big tobacco and the nicotine addicts over the vast majority of Pennsylvanians who do not smoke and who wish to enjoy clean, safe air in public places.”

[RWC] When did jumping on a “bandwagon” become a good thing?

At least Mr. Spiegler didn’t take long to get into name-calling. When a writer can’t get past the first sentence without name-calling, you can pretty much assume he can’t support his position with facts and logic.

It’s annoying the way smoking ban supporters like Mr. Spiegler abuse the term “public places.” The Beaver County Courthouse is a public place. The Pittsburgh International Airport is a public place. Your neighborhood bar, restaurant, social club, or other business is private property.

If government wants to ban smoking in truly public (government owned) places (courthouses, airport terminals, et cetera), that’s great as far as I’m concerned. My problem is with government banning smoking on private property.

“It is ironic that as the governor and Secretary of Environmental Resources Kathleen McGinty traverse the commonwealth to tell us what an environmentally-friendly gubernatorial administration we enjoy, our leader has never uttered a peep in support of a smoking prohibition bill nor placed any pressure whatsoever on the General Assembly to get such legislation to his desk.

“It is not often that an elected official has the opportunity to enact such win-win legislation as this, an action that would enhance public health and safety and save lives at no cost whatsoever.”

[RWC] “Win-win” for whom? Is it a win for property owner rights? Is it a win for business owners that want to cater to smokers? Is it a win for smoking customers and employees?

Mr. Spiegler asserts his utopia comes “at no cost whatsoever,” yet provides no proof. For starters, Mr. Spiegler must assume there will be no enforcement costs.

“Why on earth would the governor and his cohorts in the Legislature stake out yet another anti-citizen, anti-public health position, particularly after the stunning U.S. surgeon general’s report that 50,000 Americans die each year as a result of second-hand smoke?

[RWC] “Anti-citizen?” Are smokers and business owners who want to cater to smokers citizens?

“Does the governor not believe the report, or does he believe that there is a right to poison the air and that the 50,000 who die each year are expendable?”

[RWC] Since Mr. Spiegler is so concerned about the alleged victims of secondhand smoke, he must be leading the crusade for alcohol prohibition, right?

And the answer is … no way. In his October 13, 2006, letter to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mr. Spiegler wrote, “We, after all, are the state with the most restrictive liquor distribution and sales operations in the United States.” Apparently, Mr. Spiegler believes we need less restrictive alcohol distribution laws. (I do too, but I don’t take the inconsistent position of a government ban on smoking on private property.)

According to the Centers for Disease Control, “alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and non-fatally injure someone every two minutes. During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths.”

Does Mr. Spiegler believe that the 16,000+ who die each year from alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes are expendable?

Don’t get me wrong. I support neither alcohol prohibition nor prohibition of smoking on private property. My point was to show how it’s illogical to support a smoking ban based on alleged health concerns and not support alcohol prohibition.

Let’s be honest. Support of smoking bans is mostly based on personal dislike of tobacco smoke. The alleged health aspect is simply a red herring.

I’m a nonsmoker and always have been. When I choose to be in areas that permit smoking, tobacco smoke occasionally burns my eyes, irritates my throat, and I hate the stink of smoke on my clothes. I’ve also had friends get annoyed with me when I wouldn’t allow them to smoke in my car and residence. Despite my dislike of tobacco smoke, I wouldn’t dream of telling someone that he could not permit smoking on his private property. Standing up for principles isn’t about standing up only for what is convenient or what I may like.

As I’ve written before, I don’t understand the jihad against allowing customers and business owners to decide where smoking will be allowed. Why not allow individual freedom of choice determine the issue on a case-by-case basis? Do people like Mr. Spiegler believe we’re too stupid?

Mr. Spiegler, I have another crusade for you. We need a government ban on cell phone usage outside the home. Why? People using cell phones within my hearing distance annoy me and drive up my blood pressure. High blood pressure requires me to spend money on medication and results in hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.